Plate-forme Feol Peald

As to what the bidder must submit and the minimum qualification requirements, the selection guideline prescribes a strict structure for the “request to participate” (RTP). Such as: Document 01 (completed RTP form/ATD), Document 02 (mandate/proof that the signatory can legally bind the candidate), Document 03 (fully completed ESPD for the candidate, any consortium members, and any capacity‑providing entities, covering Parts II–V), Document 04 and 05 (social security and tax compliance certificates where not obtainable free of charge by the authority), Document 06 (recent criminal record extracts for the company and its key managers), Document 07 (certificates of non‑failure where applicable), Document 08 (annual accounts for the last three years and/or explicit proof of financial criteria), Document 09 (technical and professional competence references and proof of valid certification, structured per the guideline), and Document 10 (sworn declaration on possible ties with Russia. Minimum economic and financial capacity includes, such as: annual average turnover ≥ EUR 18,000,000 for products subject to this tender; no negative equity in 2 of the last 3 annual accounts; solvency ratio (equity/total assets) ≥ 15 % in the last financial year (for consortia assessed jointly); and a minimum balance sheet total (Dutch text: ≥ EUR 18,000,000 at end of last financial year; English text at one point mentions 4,000,000 – see contradictions below). Candidates must also list their administrative/management/supervisory body members, and may rely on other entities’ capacities if they provide written commitments; in such cases joint and several liability may be required and those entities must not be in exclusion situations.

Regarding the scope of the contract (what, how much, where, when), the text describes the subject only in broad terms at this stage: the “tool” is the FEOL PEALD PLATFORM, a single equipment type, with associated “Goods, Services and related costs” split between Imec EU Pilot Line NV (Tool Part) and IMEC vzw (Durables Part). Durables are defined as durable capital goods directly linked to the tool/project, including spare parts kits, LOTO kits and replacement units, excluding consumables. The detailed quantities, technical specifications, place of performance (i.e. where the tool is installed and supported) and exact contract period will be provided later in the tender specifications to the selected candidates; they are not fully detailed in the selection guideline. Such as: the contract will be a single public procurement contract concluded by Imec EU Pilot Line NV on behalf of itself and IMEC vzw, with operational execution potentially separated per entity; the agreement runs from its start until its end as defined in the procurement document, and the “duration of a contract” is the period during which the contracting authority may invoke it.

On award criteria and weighting, the input text makes clear that these are not part of the selection guideline but will be defined in the specifications sent in phase 2. Such as: in the second phase, the contracting authority will invite selected candidates to submit offers “based on the specifications” which will “mention the award criteria, as well as their weighted score.” Negotiations may follow, and the contracting authority may request initial, updated, and final offers, and may award either on initial/updated offers or after a final offer. All tenderers will receive a reasoned award decision, followed by a standstill period and then contract conclusion with the tenderer whose offer is considered most advantageous according to those award criteria. Since the criteria and their weighting are explicitly deferred to the specifications, the selection guideline itself does not list or weight them.

Risks and special conditions are addressed extensively at the selection and procedural level. Such as: (i) exclusion risks – mandatory and optional grounds under Articles 67–69 of the Belgian Public Procurement Act (criminal convictions, insolvency, social/tax debts, environmental/labour/social breaches, etc.), applied not only to the candidate entity but also to persons with representation/decision/control powers; candidates may submit “self‑cleaning” measures and one‑off regularisation of social/tax debts, and must provide certificates or sworn declarations where official documents are not available. (ii) Liability and guarantees – when relying on other entities’ financial capacity, the authority may require joint and several liability; the joint liability must be accepted in writing or the capacity cannot be invoked. Imec EU Pilot Line NV acts as sole contracting party and is responsible for the legality of the procedure and award, but the internal split between contracting authorities is not enforceable against the contractor. (iii) Subcontracting – the ESPD includes specific sections on subcontractors (those whose capacity is relied on and those whose capacity is not), and the guideline insists that no participant in a combination without legal personality may be in an exclusion situation; if a candidate relies on other entities for study/professional qualifications or relevant experience, those entities must actually perform the related works/services. (iv) Validity and regularisation – the procedure allows candidates and tenderers to correct irregularities that are not of a criminal or non‑regularisable nature; failure to reply in time to requests for clarification or supporting documents may lead to exclusion. (v) Question deadlines – questions on the selection guideline must be asked via the e‑procurement platform forum no later than ten days before the submission deadline; any corrections or answers become integral parts of the guideline. (vi) Russia‑related sanctions – there is a sworn declaration (Annex II) requiring confirmation of no prohibited Russian involvement in the contract, covering the candidate, consortium members, and any subcontractor/supplier/entity contributing more than 10 % of capacity. (vii) Language and communication – applications must be in Dutch or English, but the Dutch version is the official one; use of electronic communication is mandatory; an English version of the later contract documents can be requested but has no priority over other language versions, which matters for resolving contradictions. No specific penalty clauses or performance guarantees are detailed in the selection guideline; these are expected in the later specifications/contract.

On contradictions or corrections within the documents, the most relevant issues are language and numeric discrepancies. Such as: the Dutch selection guideline is clearly identified as the official version; the English translation is unofficial and provided for convenience, and if requested the English contract documents become an official language version but explicitly without priority over other versions. Where the Dutch and English texts differ, the Dutch version should therefore prevail for interpretation. One apparent contradiction concerns the minimum balance sheet total: the Dutch text (4.6) states a minimum of EUR 18,000,000, while one place in the English translation mentions EUR 4,000,000; given the Dutch text’s authority and the fact that the detailed list of proofs in section 5 (Document 08) again refers to 18,000,000, the applicable minimum should be read as EUR 18,000,000. Another minor inconsistency is timing: the Dutch version aims to complete selection in Q4/2026 and close the framework agreement/contract in Q1/2027, while one English passage erroneously states Q1/2026; again, the Dutch text and the overall chronological logic indicate Q1/2027 applies. Where mistakes or gaps are detected, candidates are obliged to report them via the e‑procurement forum at the latest ten days before the submission deadline so the contracting authority can issue clarifications or corrections; the answers then form part of the binding selection guideline.